8.7. To insert a new UK Rule in p76 Rule 9.4:
UK. The Section Judge will record his/her own perception of the penalty, if any, incurred. However the Section Judge will, after consultation with the Gate Judge(s), record (additionally) and communicate his/her decision of whether or not a penalty is given. Where Section Judge and Gate Judge differ, that decision will take into account relevant factors, particularly where one judge – whether Section Judge or Gate Judge – had a significantly better view of the gate, or the part of it relevant to the suggested penalty, than the other. Where there is no clear reason to regard one opinion more valid than the other, the Section Judge will give the paddler the benefit of the doubt. In any case of difference, the Section Judge will record the reason for his/her decision for the Jury’s reference in case of a protest.
It could be argued that this proposal is not necessary, as the current practice whereby the Section judge is required to report the higher of differing penalties appears to be in clear contravention of para 2 of the existing Rule 9.4, which-requires the Section Judge to “After consultation with the Gate Judges,....... record and communicate his/her decision of whether or not a penalty is given”.
However this proposal will make it clearer what that means, and how it is applied.
Proposed by Ormskirk Scouts CC and seconded by Green Star CC
Section Judging - Section Judges to communicate with gate
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
I agree with the fact we shouldn't be reporting the highest score. This is clearly against benefit of doubt. Shouldn't we be trusting our (qualified) section judges to use their own ability to judge 1) the gate and 2) whether they feel the gate judge had a better view? Gate judges (whether qualified or not) are surely there as a back-up to the qualified section judge, not as an equal. I certainly remember having several instances of disagreement with section judges which were resolved by "discussion" (gesturing as to what we thought was touched/missed/whatever) - sometimes they then agreed with me sometimes they didn't. Differences in opinion were of course recorded by both sides. This is how it should work I feel.
My vote is don't change the rule as it already basically says the same thing. The new wording is not particularly clear either. However let's send out a reminder (clubs, section judges) as to what this rule should mean.
My vote is don't change the rule as it already basically says the same thing. The new wording is not particularly clear either. However let's send out a reminder (clubs, section judges) as to what this rule should mean.
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
I agree that technically this change is not needed: I wrote the bit in italics as well!
However a preactice has grown up, unsupported to the best of my knowledge by any AGM/ACM decision, whereby the higher score is reported: and something needs to be done to change that: which means something recorded in the minutes. A resolution to add to the rules is the only way I could see of doing that. It needn't take too long!
However a preactice has grown up, unsupported to the best of my knowledge by any AGM/ACM decision, whereby the higher score is reported: and something needs to be done to change that: which means something recorded in the minutes. A resolution to add to the rules is the only way I could see of doing that. It needn't take too long!
I can't believe the only way to reinforce a rule is to change it!
One thing we have to be very careful of is not getting to a situation where we automatically give the lowest penalty, which while reducing the protest count would lead to exactly the same problem of fairness. We want the section judges to give their best opinion using all the tools available (which includes gate judges). Sure a protest would probably see the lowest penalty given anyway - but only if the paddler knew there was a difference and the reason for the decision was just difference of opinion (as opposed to thinking the gate judge didn't know the rules for example). It is important that as best as possible (not easy given they are normally being signalled across the river!) that differences of opinion are kept private.
If we have to change it I would perhaps suggest the following as more clear cut, and preserving the current rule which I believe is ICF anyway, and appending a UK clarification:
The Section Judge will record his/her own perception of the penalty, if any, incurred. However the Section Judge will, after consultation with the Gate Judges, record and communicate his/her decision of whether or not a penalty is given.
UK. Where Section Judge and Gate Judge differ, that decision will take into account all relevant factors. The Section Judge is to determine what constitues a relevant factor. One relevant factor could be where one judge had a significantly better view of the gate, or the part of it relevant to the suggested penalty. Where there is no clear reason to regard one opinion more valid than the other, the Section Judge will give the paddler the benefit of the doubt - i.e. the lowest penalty. In any case of difference, the Section Judge will record his/her penalty, the gate judge's penalty and the reason for his/her decision.
One thing we have to be very careful of is not getting to a situation where we automatically give the lowest penalty, which while reducing the protest count would lead to exactly the same problem of fairness. We want the section judges to give their best opinion using all the tools available (which includes gate judges). Sure a protest would probably see the lowest penalty given anyway - but only if the paddler knew there was a difference and the reason for the decision was just difference of opinion (as opposed to thinking the gate judge didn't know the rules for example). It is important that as best as possible (not easy given they are normally being signalled across the river!) that differences of opinion are kept private.
If we have to change it I would perhaps suggest the following as more clear cut, and preserving the current rule which I believe is ICF anyway, and appending a UK clarification:
The Section Judge will record his/her own perception of the penalty, if any, incurred. However the Section Judge will, after consultation with the Gate Judges, record and communicate his/her decision of whether or not a penalty is given.
UK. Where Section Judge and Gate Judge differ, that decision will take into account all relevant factors. The Section Judge is to determine what constitues a relevant factor. One relevant factor could be where one judge had a significantly better view of the gate, or the part of it relevant to the suggested penalty. Where there is no clear reason to regard one opinion more valid than the other, the Section Judge will give the paddler the benefit of the doubt - i.e. the lowest penalty. In any case of difference, the Section Judge will record his/her penalty, the gate judge's penalty and the reason for his/her decision.
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
I am obviously being a bit thick, but I don't see the difference. Both of us are proposing to add to the existing rule, not replace it; both of us say that the Section Judge should make the decision, not automatically call in either the higher or the lower penalty; both of us say that the section Judge should record separately a) his/her own perception b) his/her decision; both of us say that where there is simply a difference of opinion the Section Judge should give benefit of the doubt. And indeed both of us don't really see why we should go to all this rigmarole to get an existing ICF rule properly applied!
However as you can clearly see a difference that I cannot see, I suggest that your Club puts in a proposal according to your wording, and we will withdraw ours: I am certainly not hung up about being the proposer!
However as you can clearly see a difference that I cannot see, I suggest that your Club puts in a proposal according to your wording, and we will withdraw ours: I am certainly not hung up about being the proposer!
No it is the same, just an attempt to be clearer since clarity on the existing rule is the problem! However it is not for me to judge whether what I've written is any clearer than what you've written as it's obviously clear to me! If somebody else reading this feels mine is clearer then I'm sure they will propose it. Just trying to be helpful!
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
devils advocate - too late to matter. . . 
If the rule doesnt need changing, do not change it! The motion COULD have been:
Though how I know that the gate judge on the other side of the muncher is giving a penalty for touching the far pole (unseen by me the section judge) rather than a water splash with the bow that I did see, is not clear. But there are times when as a section judge gate judges do seem tohave been plucking penalties out of the air. . .
If the rule doesnt need changing, do not change it! The motion COULD have been:
This meeting believes that the current practice whereby section judges always report the highest penalty recorded by gate or section judge is in not in line with rule 9.4.
Section judges should be encouraged to use their discretion in reporting the penalty they believe correct bearing in mind any penalty reported by the gate judge.
Though how I know that the gate judge on the other side of the muncher is giving a penalty for touching the far pole (unseen by me the section judge) rather than a water splash with the bow that I did see, is not clear. But there are times when as a section judge gate judges do seem tohave been plucking penalties out of the air. . .
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
RESULT
An amendment to this motion was tabled and accepted to reword this as:
The amended motion was carried with 41 votes for, 22 votes against and 10 abstentions
An amendment to this motion was tabled and accepted to reword this as:
This meeting believes that the current practice whereby section judges always report the highest penalty recorded by gate or section judge, is in not in line with rule 9.4.
Section judges should be encouraged to use their discretion in reporting the penalty they believe correct, bearing in mind any penalty reported by the gate judge, rather than always reporting the higher penalty.
The amended motion was carried with 41 votes for, 22 votes against and 10 abstentions
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
-
doubtful
didn't think too much about this until the tees prem race. quite apart from rob holdways concerns on a diferent thread, i saw several gate judges unsure about penalties and gesturing this to the section judges, who usually gave the higher penalty. in some cases this was noticably wrong (mainly because the section judge was not best placed to see). the same thing happened at hpp last weekend.
this means that the 'disagreement' which might give a doubt 'to give the benefitr of' (as john has put it before)is not being written down, and neither paddler or jury can see that there was any question about the penalty. the element of doubt is being erased by the exchange of sign langauge between gate and section judges without any record being made.
a section judge with a strong opinion with an inexperienced or easily persuaded gate judge can infleunce results unfairly. i'm not suggesting this is deliberate, but force of character doesnt always make for fair results. surely the judges should be noting there own decisions down, as they see fit, without consulting each other. and gate judges should stand up for there own record of penalties - as i said earleir they are often in the best position to see simply because there are more of them and they have less gates to cover.
the motion was intended to clarify the rules and stop section judges automatically recording the highest penalty but it is clear this is not happening in practice.
this means that the 'disagreement' which might give a doubt 'to give the benefitr of' (as john has put it before)is not being written down, and neither paddler or jury can see that there was any question about the penalty. the element of doubt is being erased by the exchange of sign langauge between gate and section judges without any record being made.
a section judge with a strong opinion with an inexperienced or easily persuaded gate judge can infleunce results unfairly. i'm not suggesting this is deliberate, but force of character doesnt always make for fair results. surely the judges should be noting there own decisions down, as they see fit, without consulting each other. and gate judges should stand up for there own record of penalties - as i said earleir they are often in the best position to see simply because there are more of them and they have less gates to cover.
the motion was intended to clarify the rules and stop section judges automatically recording the highest penalty but it is clear this is not happening in practice.
-
Dan Goddard
I really do feel that the gate judge and section judge should be able to communicate openlly about a touch before it goes onto a paddlers result and agree (penilty) or disagree (BOD therefor no penilty)
a few situations i have been in personally.
One where i asked my father to go to a section judge on one desision to explain that i gave clear because of the position i was in i could not see if the paddler got there head inside or not because of my postion relitive to that particular gate. The section judge could see clearlly so that was fine, thats why we have two different viewpoints. If i could have communicated personally it would have been far better.
one where i missed a competitor on the first two gates of the section so i must give BOD. even though both gates were swinging and were not swinging before the competitor cmae down.
Both of these under protest Would have been rejected i hope because the BOD was not really fair because i was either in the wrong place to see the touch or not looking.
If the there is BOD why is there BOD? this is what comes out in a protest but not at the time?
However there are many times i have felt certain someone was clean but been given a touch by a section judge.
I would have loved to be able to have more input into thouse decisions or at least know where the touch was.
All in all i think comunication is key and the way forward if we can think up a solution. i am also in favour of more BOD.
Hope that all makes sense.
Dan
a few situations i have been in personally.
One where i asked my father to go to a section judge on one desision to explain that i gave clear because of the position i was in i could not see if the paddler got there head inside or not because of my postion relitive to that particular gate. The section judge could see clearlly so that was fine, thats why we have two different viewpoints. If i could have communicated personally it would have been far better.
one where i missed a competitor on the first two gates of the section so i must give BOD. even though both gates were swinging and were not swinging before the competitor cmae down.
Both of these under protest Would have been rejected i hope because the BOD was not really fair because i was either in the wrong place to see the touch or not looking.
If the there is BOD why is there BOD? this is what comes out in a protest but not at the time?
However there are many times i have felt certain someone was clean but been given a touch by a section judge.
I would have loved to be able to have more input into thouse decisions or at least know where the touch was.
All in all i think comunication is key and the way forward if we can think up a solution. i am also in favour of more BOD.
Hope that all makes sense.
Dan
-
noBODy
I have to agree with doubtful, I think that BOD is not being given where it should be. I was watching at hpp last weekend and saw something similar. don't know if it was the inexepreience of the gate judge or the attitude of the section judge but I saw at least a couple of 50's given which were defintely not 50's. the problem was the gate judge was unsure and signalled this to the section judge, but she instantly dismissed the doubt and indicated a 50. I presume that both gate and section judge would therefore show agreement and if the paddlers had protested there would have been no evidence on which to give BOD.
Doubtful is correct to say that a strong-willed section judge overridng a gate judge is not always right, and who would the jury pay more attention to anyway?
I don't know if either paddler appealed but I can't imagine this particular section judge budging, and as I said these were definitely not 50's. I could see this clearly at the time - in all cases head and boat cleanly negotiated the gate but very quickly. On Saturday I think it probably made quite a difference to the results for the paddlers involved.
I can agree with Dan that communication should be the ideal, but I don't think section judges are always the best at this when they are strongwilled enough to sway a gate judge, especially if the gate judge has signalled they're not sure. as I said, who is going to believe a paddler when theres no evidence of disagreement to support BOD? The motion may have been passed at the ACM to grant more BOD but it is obvious that it hasn't made any difference. the section judge should NOT automatically put the highest penalty down , and differneces should be noted to allow BOD where due. I know being a judge isnt easy, but neither is the disappointment of haviing a good run ruined by bad judging which breaches rules agreed by the ACM.
So gate judges - PLEASE be strong enough to put down what YOU see, not what the section judge wants you to put. IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT AT ALL, PLEASE RECORD IT HONESTLY, AND GIVE BOD TO THE PADDLER LIKE THE RULES DEMAND. That's your job done, then you can leave it to others to sort out the appeals but at least they will have the evidence to do this properly. I'm sorry for the capitals but this is so important and nothing seems to have changed from last year.
Doubtful is correct to say that a strong-willed section judge overridng a gate judge is not always right, and who would the jury pay more attention to anyway?
I don't know if either paddler appealed but I can't imagine this particular section judge budging, and as I said these were definitely not 50's. I could see this clearly at the time - in all cases head and boat cleanly negotiated the gate but very quickly. On Saturday I think it probably made quite a difference to the results for the paddlers involved.
I can agree with Dan that communication should be the ideal, but I don't think section judges are always the best at this when they are strongwilled enough to sway a gate judge, especially if the gate judge has signalled they're not sure. as I said, who is going to believe a paddler when theres no evidence of disagreement to support BOD? The motion may have been passed at the ACM to grant more BOD but it is obvious that it hasn't made any difference. the section judge should NOT automatically put the highest penalty down , and differneces should be noted to allow BOD where due. I know being a judge isnt easy, but neither is the disappointment of haviing a good run ruined by bad judging which breaches rules agreed by the ACM.
So gate judges - PLEASE be strong enough to put down what YOU see, not what the section judge wants you to put. IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT AT ALL, PLEASE RECORD IT HONESTLY, AND GIVE BOD TO THE PADDLER LIKE THE RULES DEMAND. That's your job done, then you can leave it to others to sort out the appeals but at least they will have the evidence to do this properly. I'm sorry for the capitals but this is so important and nothing seems to have changed from last year.
-
doubtful
thanks noBODy fpr putting it better than i did, (it was a bit late last night).
i want to make it clear that i'm not having a go at any gate or section judge who honestly records what they saw. it is a difficult job and this rule should make it easier. the problem is there are section judges who ride roughshod over the process and don't take any other view in to account but their own, in which case why bother with the gate judge at all, (and i'm sure they would agree!) at least if a disagreement is recorded then any appeal can take account of BOD even if the section judge flatly refuses to. The sign language approach can lead to nothing being recorded except the final penalty, apparently agreed by both gate and section judge, and not at all fair for the paddler who, after all, is why they are there in the first place!!!
i want to make it clear that i'm not having a go at any gate or section judge who honestly records what they saw. it is a difficult job and this rule should make it easier. the problem is there are section judges who ride roughshod over the process and don't take any other view in to account but their own, in which case why bother with the gate judge at all, (and i'm sure they would agree!) at least if a disagreement is recorded then any appeal can take account of BOD even if the section judge flatly refuses to. The sign language approach can lead to nothing being recorded except the final penalty, apparently agreed by both gate and section judge, and not at all fair for the paddler who, after all, is why they are there in the first place!!!
-
guest
-
doubtful
Its going off topic in this thread but requests for reruns are not the same as protests, they are down to the organisers discretion on the facts as presented. If you think you deserve a rerun but aren't granted one then yuo can pay your fee and protest to the jury, but it doesn't allow anybody else to protest against it or open it for discussion, the BCU aren't that democratic!!!